No report on climate change gets as much attention in Pakistan as the annual report by German Watch, Global Climate Risk Index. This years’ Index has once again reminded us that Pakistan is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world. It has ranked Pakistan as the 8^thmost vulnerable country based on 20 years of data. It has also ‘downgraded’ Pakistan’s climate risk ranking from 6^th position in 2012 to 15^th in 2021. This is the 16^th time that through its annual Index, German Watch has drawn our attention to our unenviable – and embarrassing – position. We have refused, however, to pay any heed to their recommendations. Despite the chain of reminders, Pakistan has not developed any coherent national, provincial or local level responses to reduce its climate risks and vulnerabilities.

The policymakers, the media and the academia cite the report readily, rarely asking any questions about its methodology, accuracy or completeness. The reason is simple and straightforward: complacency and shirking responsibility. Pakistan’s high placement on the annual Index perhaps also serves our desire of being able to play the victim card. The high ranking is often presented as if it is a ‘trophy’. Instead of undertaking concrete, coordinated and concerted national-level efforts to reduce climate risks, the poor ranking becomes a reason for self-pity, breast-beating and an excuse to solicit global sympathy and to pitch for higher levels of international support. The annually released Index should instead be a reminder to the policymakers of how ill-prepared Pakistan is to deal with the climate risks.

Let’s first see what the Climate Risk Index is and what it is not. This Index is only a catalogue of three specific types of disasters and not a complete climate vulnerability index. An accurate and comprehensive index is almost impossible to have because of its complexity. The Index only offers an analysis of the quantifiable extreme weather events - storms, heat waves and floods. The more losses a country experiences from these events during the reporting period, the higher it will be placed on the risk index. In doing so, the German Watch has over-simplified the reality as it attributes all such extreme weather events to the climate-induced metrological, hydrological or climatological factors. It glosses over a host of vexing issues such as poor governance, inadequate infrastructure, poor planning, absence of adaptation and mitigation strategies and inequitable resource allocation that are often the fundamental contributing factors to higher human and economic losses. Such losses are indicative of a double jeopardy in a developing country rather than the severity of climate impacts:

a development pattern that over decades has been neither inclusive nor pro-poor, resulting in marginalisation and higher human and economic losses, and

failure of policy community to mainstream climate change in national development policies or adopt climate smart or climate compatible development.

Blaming climate change alone for all losses simply ignores the ground realities and the political economy behind the absence of climate action. It is alarmist, fatalistic and reductionist, if not unscientific and misleading.

In methodological terms, the Index is based on measuring losses in three easy-to-measure categories:

total no of deaths, divided by per 100,000 inhabitants

sum losses in purchasing power parity, and

losses in per unit of GDP.

By its own admission, the Index is fatally constrained by limitations of the raw data, taken primarily from one of the most reliable datasets of Munich re, a well-respected global reinsurance company. German Watch takes into account only the direct losses, without getting into indirect impacts or implications of meteorological, hydrological or climatological losses. No wonder droughts, loss of biodiversity or loss of agricultural productivity and yield, seawater rise, hydrological cycles, or other such adverse impacts of climate change that are harder to measure or quantify are not included in the Index. Since the Index is concerned only with quantifiable impacts that can be insured, it is not directly concerned about the slow-onset of climate change. The slow-onset can only be measured with the help of longitudinal or decadal datasets. It often has far more serious long-term consequences than the immediate losses from extreme events. The slow-onset of climate change in Pakistan, for example, poses existential threats by the changes in weather patterns resulting in disturbances in monsoon pattern and warming temperatures, increasing seawater intrusion, droughts, biodiversity loss and glacial melt. The annual Index is not a climate vulnerability index, yet it is an important compilation of the losses caused by cyclones, heatwaves, floods and landslides. It can serve as a warning signal to the level of exposure and vulnerability to extreme events to the population.

The Index only offers an analysis of the quantifiable extreme weather events — storms, heat waves and floods. The more losses a country experiences from these events during the reporting period, the higher it will be placed on the risk index.

The methodology is structured in such a way that the countries are taken as passive entities and their ranking can go up or down mechanically, depending mostly on external factors. A country’s vulnerability status in the annual Index will improve, if these extreme events do not occur during the reporting period. As a flood-prone country, for example, Pakistan’s ranking has hinged on the frequency and severity of floods. Because of tragic losses in the Super Flood of 2010 - and a few subsequent years - Pakistan’s position shot up in the ranking. Single, exceptionally intense extreme weather event in 2010 brought Pakistan in the ‘top ten countries. However, since such floods have not occurred in recent years, Pakistan’s ranking in the global Index has improved. In the 2021 Index, Pakistan is not on the list of 10 most vulnerable countries. Instead, Afghanistan and India have jumped their positions in the 2021 report to become 6^th and 7^th respectively, because of floods and landslides resulting in huge human and economic loses. That is why that while the adverse impact of climate change in Pakistan have become more visible and alarming, the country’s overall ranking in the Index has been improving. Paradoxically, it will continue to improve while the adverse impacts of climate change increase, till the time the country is visited by a major flood, heatwave or a cyclone. One cynical way for Pakistan to improve its position in the risk index is to hope and pray that the floods visit other countries or regions and not us.

German Watch data shows that over the years the tropical storms have become a bigger menace in the world than the riverine floods as several countries hit by tropical storms were ranked higher on the risk index. This has resulted in decline in risk ranking based on floods compared to the tropical cyclones. Over the last 20 years, the frequency and ferocity of tropical storms have increased and therefore the list is often topped by the victims of tropical storms, at least compared to the riverine floods. In the 2021 Index, for example, Porto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, Philippines, Mozambique and Bahamas with fewer events were ranked higher in the risk ranking than Pakistan that experienced floods that were, thankfully, less severe. Of the top 10 countries - except for Pakistan, Thailand and Nepal that were hit by the floods - all were visited by cyclones. Hence, because of increased tropical storms, Pakistan’s position slid down from the 5^th to the 8^th.

Tropical cyclones have in recent years been changing track and approaching Pakistan more frequently as seen by Ganu (2007), Yemyin (2007) and Phet (2010) cyclones. Pakistan’s coastal districts have been adversely affected by periodic heavy rainfall and tropical cyclones. On the other hand, Bangladeh, Inida, Sri Lanka and Maldives in South Asia are more prone to tropical cyclones than Pakistan.

In other words, since Pakistan is not a high tropical cyclone risk country, its ranking will also improve if there were more tropical storms elsewhere in the world.

The ranking is based on the frequency (cyclones vs floods) of extreme events coupled with the level of exposure. Most of the countries on the top ten list in the Index are low-income countries, while Pakistan is placed with low-middle income countries. Yet, exposure to risks from floods in Pakistan is higher than in Bangladesh. According to the Index, Bangladesh had more extreme events than Pakistan (185 vs. 173), but her per unit of GDP losses were lower in percentage terms than in Pakistan, possibly showing better preparedness that Bangladesh has relentlessly pursued since cyclone Bhola in 1971, when it was still East Pakistan. Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh is highly prone to both tropical storms and riverine floods.

Finally, a gap between extreme events can allow the communities and countries to recover, recoup and rebuild. A frequent recurrence of extreme events does not allow them the breathing space, adding further to vulnerability and the erosion of resilience. Philippines is a classic example; it has been punished repeatedly by tropical storms almost annually, seriously depleting the country’s resilience. Each successive cyclone has found the communities more vulnerable than before. Pakistan has been extremely fortunate on this score during the same period, allowing us the time to rebuild and recoup. The data presented in the Index is revealing: over the last 20 years, Pakistan lost 0.52 percent of GDP, with a loss of $3.7 billion – ranked third over 20 years. The report has also pointed out that of the 10 most vulnerable countries, six countries lost a higher percentage of GDP compared to Pakistan, and two less than Pakistan with far fewer deaths, again showing poor climate proofing of infrastructure. Pakistan’s ranking can therefore improve not only if the tropical cyclones continue to hit some other countries more frequently as it has been happening, but also if Pakistan improves its preparedness by undertaking preparatory actions. The choice is ours: do we wish to leave it to chance or do we want to invest in our readiness to cope with climate risks?

The author is an Islamabad-based climate change and water governance expert. He tweets @atsheikh, and can be reached at atauqeersheikh@gmail.com